Post by strange on May 17, 2008 14:16:37 GMT -5

We've discussed this Dr.Fox fellow before, recently my brain has been tingling about a few details that have caught my eye....For those not upto date, Fox is a preacher of the "no last stand" theory and the quick obliteration of Custer's battalions.Through digging about the terrain, he made these arguments.....

-Few shots fired by the 7th, and a quick wipeout before they can even reach their triggers.

Indians have given many accounts where they have debated, AMONGST THEMSELVES, over how bloody the battle was and how many warriors were killed by the soldiers.However, Indians seem to concur that many of the soldiers ran out of ammo, and that MANY shots were fired.Gall said that the soldiers let off their rounds most abundantly and efficiently, but went on to say that the soldiers were in awkward positions where they could not access the warriors and that they "fired over our heads". Red Horse relates a bloodier story, of "5 Great Stands", where the Indians were face deep in abundant rounds and over 200 Indians were killed or wounded in one charge against Custer's firing lines.The onlookers from Weir Point, reported an endless roll of firing and they watched for two hours while "Custer was giving it to them hot".Our resident Keogh made a good slam Fox's 'no shot" argument by stating how the Indians fired downward, driving their bullets deep into the ground (to be found years later), while Custer's dismounted troops were firing upward (thus their bullets picked away by visitors).

While many of us have well educated and very differing opinions here, can we not agree that a HELL OF A LOT OF SHOTS WERE FIRED!!!!?

Post by fred on May 18, 2008 22:19:33 GMT -5

You are jumping to some conclusions about Fox and his theories.

First of all, his idea of a "last stand" and your idea of a last stand are obviously different. Fox merely claims there was no "fatalistic" stand, with soldiers hunkered down behind their horses, the Indians circling, shooting, until no soldiers were left. Fox feels it was more disorganized than that. You have Custer fighting his way up toward the top of the hill; you have approximately 40 men heading down the SSL, probably in some attempt to escape; you have another group of 7 trying to get away in another direction... and so on. It wasn't a stand like in the movie "Fort Apache."

It did happen very quickly, but only after a lot of maneuvering. It wasn't a long, drawn-out battle, not once the Indians attacked in strength.

The ammo business is deceiving, sort of like with Reno's men. You had a number of soldiers who fired only sporadically and you had others begging for more ammo. That's the way combat is; you cannot make generalities and expect them to fit the whole situation. There were several Indians interviewed in the years after the battle and they told of picking up cartridge belts loaded with ammo.

You may disagree with Richard Fox' conclusions, but no one has attached more scientific evidence to their theory than Fox and no one has been able to argue him wrong. While the archaeological finds can still be considered only circumstantial, they lend more credence to his theory than the stupidity put forward by writers like Jack Pennington. If you believe Pennington, we might just as well all pack up and go home.

Post by crzhrs on May 19, 2008 11:03:55 GMT -5

Fox's theory has been questioned due to mostly the cartridge/fired round issue. Fox did not base his theory solely on archaeological evidence, but combined it with testimony.

Over the years many people roamed the battlefield, but mostly at LSH where the "star power" of the battle took place.

From another forum:

The souvenier hunters picked some areas of the field while they seemingly left others alone? Nonsense. Did they pick the field in precise skirmish line formation on Calhoun Hill? Probably not. Did the people who salted CH salt it in precise skirmish line formation? Nope. Those that salted the field in the early days of the monument left these casings in areas in which made it easy for the tourists to find them so most of these salted casings left the field as souveniers. Those that didn't leave the field as souveniers were discovered and discounted from the NPS study. Keep in mind that prior to the fire the NPS had no idea all this evidence was lying around. Were the souvenier hunting tourists privvy to information that the day to day custodians of the battlefield were unaware of? Probably not. As was pointed out in an earlier post, the archaeology cannot stand on its own. In his book Fox points out how the archaeology corroborates the Indian accounts of this end of the fight. To be sure, as with any book, there are some flaws but these are few and far between. Any one who claims to be a student of this event and fails to read this book has simply missed the boat. _____I agree with the above statement and consider Fox's book a must-have.

Post by fred on May 19, 2008 11:39:18 GMT -5

Horse--

I completely agree with you. It is especially so once you have had the opportunity to discuss it with Fox directly. And also, remember that the cartridges were generally dated by the manufacturers so much of the "salting" can be eliminated by forensics.

Post by strange on May 20, 2008 19:07:03 GMT -5

If so many overwhelming amounts of Indian bullets were found deep beneath the soil, would that not indicate that the Indians were MISSING a substantial number of their shots, that Custer's dead horse breastworks were rather real and very effective, or that the battle was...... drum roll...... rather long and hard fought as old-west lore insists?I heard that many of the unmutilated bodies were found in rather fine condition. Custer himself was in rather good condition for some one who had just been overtly massacred within minutes, and how many bullets and arrows did his other men die with? And where were they hit?I've heard, so far, alot of head shots and upper body wounds which indicate that Custer's dead horse breastworks were both real and effective in protecting some of their main vital areas around the torso.

I standby the reasoning that the best kind of archeology at Little Bighorn, is in bodies. I'm always thrilled to see the professional exhumation of any historical figure and I definitely wish photos had been snapped at the time to show us the faces that these soldiers died with. But we'll just never have enough to know it all.

Post by fred on May 20, 2008 20:26:14 GMT -5

I don't know who you've been talking to, Strange, but I fail to see any purpose of the Indians shooting down into the ground. Why? Ask yourself: what sense does that make? And an "overwhelming" number of bullets? What does that mean?

The only time that might make sense would have been in Deep Ravine. It is also in Deep Ravine where they found so many men with head and upper body wounds. That would indicate Indians firing down on the troops from the upper sides of the ravine. It's like Benteen said at the RCOI: "They could not shoot out of the ravine and they certainly did not go into it to shoot out of it."

As for the bodies, those that may have escaped mutilation had been otherwise exposed to 2 to 3 days of intense heat and sun. That's why so many were unrecognizable. Who is to say how many were not mutilated? And "many" is a relative term... is "5," many? Is "10"? If there were only 20 men, 10 is many; but there were 210 men, so maybe 10 isn't many. As for Custer, there is little doubt that most of the survivors in the regiment were hesitant to be honest about what they saw out of consideration for Libbie Custer. Luther Hare certainly was, and he was one of the most honorable officers in the regiment. The "Witch" outlived him. In fact, she out-lived all but Varnum, I believe. So whatever those men saw and whatever they were reluctant to tell-- out of deference to Mrs. Custer-- is lost to us forever.

Post by crzhrs on May 21, 2008 9:39:06 GMT -5

After the fight on LSH was over it is possible that Indians did shoot at downed soldiers. Bullets may have passed through bodies and into the ground.

Also after the battle Indians may have gone around and finished off wounded by firing into their heads or just shot at dead soldiers to make sure they were dead.

Fred is right about the bodies lying in the heat & sun. Scavengers also may have done their grisly work which would add to the condition of the bodies as they were later found.

I also agree that Custer's condition may have been covered up out of sensitivity to Libbie, but also to protect his image. It was bad enough Custer was dead, but to have his body disfigured by Indians would not have been a very glamorous and/or heroic end to his life. It was better to say Indians did not mutilate him out of respect for his "gallant fight" (hardly)

Post by fred on May 21, 2008 10:17:52 GMT -5

After the fight on LSH was over it is possible that Indians did shoot at downed soldiers. Bullets may have passed through bodies and into the ground.

Horse--

I agree with you here, but that would have no affect on the battle and any archaeologist worth his salt would have immediately ruled out such evidence when determining what happened during the fight. The depth and direction of the bullets would have made it abundantly clear how they were directed.

Post by keogh on May 21, 2008 13:26:22 GMT -5

Agreed . . . it would have no effect on the battle and/or archaelogy. Just trying to come up with an answer as to why bullets could end up in the ground.

Archaeology certainly has its place in attempting an accurate reconstruction of the battle. Dr. Fox and Mr. Scott contributed greatly to our understanding of how this battle unfolded, and I do not excoriate him at all on his professional work as an archaeologist. I rather took issue with a certain number of his conclusions, which I felt were outside of his area of expertise. For one thing, regarding the excessive number of Indian bullets found on the field....we must remember that the soldiers were firing from higher ground, for the most part, whether this be at LSH, Calhoun Hill, Finley Ridge, or Battle Ridge, thus quite a few Indian bullets would have been directed at these locations. Whatever bullets missed their targets or went thru them, would have been buried in the slope behind the troopers. You would not expect to find soldier bullets in these locations, as the soldiers would be firing at distant Indian firing positions, which in fact, were found along Greasy Grass Ridge, Henryville, etc. What you would expect to find, rather than bullets, were cartridge casings left at the trooper positions at LSH, Calhoun Hill, Finley Ridge, and Battle Ridge. However, we must keep in mind that these empty shell casings marking the volume and location of the original skirmish lines or defensive positions would not be buried in the ground, but rather left close to or at the surface, and thus easily scavenged by tourists and locals intent on souvenirs. The end result would be a field severely depleted in cartridge shell casings combined with an abundance of Indian bullets buried well into the ground. Dr. Fox concluded from this evidence that there was no sustained last stand. Other historians conclude that the shell casing evidence has been far too severely tampered with over the years to support this rather controversial conclusion.

Post by fred on May 21, 2008 14:27:46 GMT -5

Keogh--

As you well know by now, I am Fox' biggest fan (along with the guys who were with me last June). Having said that, it does not mean I automatically believe everything Fox says. I do feel there was a "last stand," of sorts (as did Benteen). I just don't think it was quite like the one we saw in "Fort Apache." It is also a minor issue as far as I'm concerned. Richard Fox' major contribution is in his "battle flow," and it is this flow and its attendant timing that I think is where he shines. Fox is the first one to admit much of his findings are circumstantial, but the conclusions he draws from those findings fit better than any I have seen or read by anyone else.

Fox is also one of the very few writers-- including Graham-- who fits his theory into the military aspects of the battle. In other words, placement of men, skirmish lines, tactical considerations. The evidence also suggests a certain element of panic and I think the Seventh's officers would agree with that, as well. Again, Fox and I diverge somewhat here, because I don't believe the panic was as pervasive as Fox thinks it was. But again, that's a relative situation and whether 100 men panicked or 110 men panicked, it's really irrelevant.

Post by benteeneast on May 22, 2008 0:43:27 GMT -5

I for one would like to see more forsenics techniques discussed on bullet orientation found in the ground indicating the path of bullet before contact with earth. I have found a signifcant number of bullets in the ground behind our range with the nose toward the shooters which indicates what? They were shooting back? The back stop is made of lose soil and not much rock. Maybe soft lead behaves differently.

Post by bc on May 22, 2008 22:12:24 GMT -5

Regarding Scott, I've read some of the articles regarding the archeology there at the LBH. The bullet and trajectory studies are good. However I think that his conclusions regarding troop movements are really a stretch and aren't supported by the evidence. I can look at the same bullet information and come up with different conclusions. And the archeology isn't complete for the whole battlefield along with areas such as at MTC and the ford B area that are picked over. You need a giant leap of faith to follow his theory which I don't have. I wouldn't rule it out but there are some other pieces of the puzzle that have to also fit.

Post by fred on May 23, 2008 8:22:55 GMT -5

I rather agree with "BC" here, especially regarding the weaponry (that was never a strong suit of mine and "BC" clearly knows what he's talking about).

I have also never put a lot of stock in Scott, though I haven't read much of his theories. I have read his They Died With Custer, but my notes show no particular originality of theory. Plus, I have the two he did with Fox, Archaeological Insights into the Custer Battle and Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Big Horn, neither of which I've read.

I have read Fox' book, Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle six times and I plan on reading it again, soon. While I completely agree with "BC" about further archaeology in other areas, I also think some of it would be worthless because of the deterioration of those areas due to cattle, humans, and natural erosion. Ford B is a perfect example.

My argument in favor of Fox is that he covers all the bases and fills in virtually every gap within his archaeological sphere of findings. Only personal theories or prejudices (and I am not above that) argue against most of Fox' findings. The attractiveness of his work is in the detail and how one thing leads logically to another.

As a 10-year former army officer who has been in combat, I have developed three rules by which I gauge all military operations. If the event doesn't meet all three criteria, it probably didn't happen the way we think it did: (1) logic; (2) flow; and (3) simplicity. The LBH battle is a perfect example-- to me-- of an event perfectly fitting within all three of those parameters. Richard Fox, while not specifically acknowledging those three, tacitly argued for all when he wrote his book. He agreed with me last summer when I brought them up to him. Those principles must be adhered to in a military operation simply because of the speed, the danger, the sharpness, and the mortal fear inherent in all killing ventures. To me, this is the beauty inherent in Fox' book. Its logic is unmistakable, the flow is virtually perfect, and the simplicity fits well within the time parameters we allow.

Again, to me, this is how you analyze someone's work and their theories.

Post by strange on May 23, 2008 10:12:21 GMT -5

As you well know by now, I am Fox' biggest fan (along with the guys who were with me last June). Having said that, it does not mean I automatically believe everything Fox says. I do feel there was a "last stand," of sorts (as did Benteen). I just don't think it was quite like the one we saw in "Fort Apache." It is also a minor issue as far as I'm concerned. Richard Fox' major contribution is in his "battle flow," and it is this flow and its attendant timing that I think is where he shines. Fox is the first one to admit much of his findings are circumstantial, but the conclusions he draws from those findings fit better than any I have seen or read by anyone else.

Fox is also one of the very few writers-- including Graham-- who fits his theory into the military aspects of the battle. In other words, placement of men, skirmish lines, tactical considerations. The evidence also suggests a certain element of panic and I think the Seventh's officers would agree with that, as well. Again, Fox and I diverge somewhat here, because I don't believe the panic was as pervasive as Fox thinks it was. But again, that's a relative situation and whether 100 men panicked or 110 men panicked, it's really irrelevant.

Best wishes,Fred.

"Flow" would be very important, and I think that'd have to definitely redeem Fox in my eye.Again to his credit, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few men had panicked . Its not just on Reno, its also in Reno's grunts, and other grunts and officers that we may simply not have documentation for.

Its usually a horsewhipping death sentence to critique the common soldier, but people will forget that many of Reno's enlisted men were behaving in the same lunatic fashion as their commander. Such is why Reno has many fans within his common soldiers. Not everyone joins the military for the passion and gallantry, there are a number of "ham'n'eggers" who are just in for their meal tickets. Aside from a few very brave heroes, like Rosser who stood behind to fight the Indians all by himself and find his own way back, Reno was well supported by the common soldiers who panicked the same way as their commander did.We'd often like to believe that there were no "ham'n'eggers" who went down with Custer, but we all should know that there was a mental battle amongst the soldiers.... over who's gallant and who wants to go home with their skins intact.

The Indians have accounted for the strange unpredictability of the battle. White Bull gave accounts of the "foolish" and the gallant. Indians, through INDIVIDUAL accounts, have documented the volumes of different kinds of soldiers who they fought. Some historians call these "contradictions", but many Indians will individually account for the odd things tat happened in different places.I don't think there's very many accounts that don't come togeter for me. Custer died with about 5 companies, basing themselves into three places. The Indian are gonna have several stories because none of soldiers are going to respond into the fight the same way.Thats why Indians will account to saying so many things.......-5 great stands (Red Horse, WhiteBull,etc.)-Drunken or disorganized soldiers (Red Horse said this too)-Soldiers were TOO strict and organized (Witebull's criticism of the soldiers)-Soldiers couldn't reach their bullets on any of the warriors (Gall, and others)-Soldiers killed/wounded 200 Indians from a single charge from te warriors (RedHorse)-Soldiers fired MANY shots (seemingly accounted by every witness that I've read)-Soldiers wiped out before they can reach their triggers (I think Two Moons may have stated this)-Soldiers were wiped as fast as "lunch" (Two Moons)

And it goes on......Personally, I think all of the above could have happened. I take the side that Custer fought very well and killed many Indians, but certain Indians would have prevailed better if they were up fighting in different places. Its a 3 hour battle, as far as I think, so the soldiers would've had time to plan escapes, surrenders, gallant deaths, holding positions until reinforcements arrive, etc.Weir saw the battle, Benteen as well. They looked at it for two hours, and they were probably as confused as we are today.Granted, Benteen should've reinforced Custer, and he's probably a traitor for not doing so, but I understand where a number of these seasoned vets could've been frightened or confused. They saw something far stranger than any veteran probably knows.

Post by fred on May 23, 2008 11:39:03 GMT -5

Strange--

I don't mean to pick on you, but I think you need to do some more research before you come out with pronouncements like Benteen was a traitor. As for some of your other stuff, well, much of it is relative and we cannot use generalities to cover the entire battle. Both the Arapaho, Left Hand, and the Minneconjou, Red Horse, claimed they picked up cartridge belts that were nearly full. I'm sure they did and I'm equally sure other soldiers were running low of ammo. Similarly, for every Indian who said the troops panicked, there was another who said they fought very well. I am absolutely positive both cases are correct and it is one of the few areas where I question Dr. Fox and he conceded my point; the same thing with the "last stand." It's all in the definition.

You have officers like Varnum and Moylan who said their men fired almost all their ammo, then you have authors like Bruce Liddic who wrote that the ammo boxes weren't even touched when they arrived on Reno Hill. You even have participants who claim they opened a box or saw someone else open a box... so who do we believe? The person we want to believe because it fits with our "feelings" about someone or do we believe the person who was there?

As for Benteen, I will simply ask you the questions, How long were you in the army, and, How much combat have you seen?

Then I would like you to review Benteen's military record-- you can look it up in Heitman's Register-- and tell me if "traitor" fits the man's record. Also, I would ask you what you would have done were you Benteen and you just came upon a broken command with 900 screeching Indians below you; a command with any number of wounded, a command with what certainly appeared to be a broken commander; a command that had one company of 3 men they could account for; a command whose adjutant lay dead on a muddy river bank; a command who had no idea where the regimental commander went off to; and finally, a situation, when, the last you heard, that regimental commander was chasing other Indians all over hell's half-acre.

I know what I would have done. Here's a quote from Colonel William A. Graham, U. S. Army:“… his known character and the habit of his entire life refutes the imputation that at any time or in any circumstances he failed in his duty as an officer and a soldier. He fought as he had lived, fearless, uncompromising, and grimly stern. Benteen was one of the best soldiers the United States Army has ever possessed.” [The Story of the Little Big Horn, pp. 105-106]

[Godfrey was Anders' godfather.] In 1927, Godfrey told Anders "without mincing words that up to Benteen's death he was the finest type of accomplished cavalry officer that the United States army ever had. He specifically did not except Custer. He said to me 'I was never a Custerite.'.... He said that Benteen was utterly reliable, trustworthy, had a keen sense of humor, a very fine natural sense of distances, areas, number of men in formations, either large or small and that he was especially fine in strategy and tactics. That his ideas of striking distances never faild [sic] to hold good. He was especially good at the judging of the capability of man or beast on a campaign, and that he was especially good in the conservation of the troops under his command. Godfrey, in a direct question that I asked him why the Custer-Benteen hatred he made the answer that they were too [sic] good cavalrymen in one regiment and that they radically differed in every way as to administration, training, care of men and horses, tactics, strategy and campaigning.”